Mandate

The Building Code Commission (the “Commission”) is an adjudicative agency whose legislative authority is set out in sections 23 and 24 of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The Commission has a mandate to resolve disputes between proponents of construction projects and enforcement officials. The Building Code Act, 1992, sets out three types of disputes that can be heard by the Building Code Commission (BCC): those relating to the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements of the Building Code; those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for permit processing; and those related to compliance with the prescribed time frames for site inspections. The Commission’s adjudicative decisions are made independently from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the "Ministry") and the Government of Ontario.

In exercising its mandate, the Commission receives all of its staffing and financial resources from the Building Services Transformation Branch of the Ministry.

Guiding principles

As an agency of the Government, the Commission conducts itself according to the management principles of the Government of Ontario. The Commission’s proceedings are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Building Code Act, 1992, the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet Directives and the Building Code Commission’s Guidelines, Policies and Procedures Handbook. These principles and governance elements include ethical behaviour, accountability, excellence in management, wise use of public funds, and high quality service to the public by contributing to the health, safety, accessibility and energy efficiency of buildings in Ontario and by playing a positive role within Ontario’s design and construction sector.

The Commission has a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minister of Ministry of Municipal Affairs (the "Minister") relating to the exercising of its mandate. The MOU sets out the relationship between the Commission, the Minister and the Ministry with respect to the Commission and the service it provides. The purpose of the MOU is to establish the responsibilities of these parties and to ensure that accountability is a fundamental principle that is observed in the management, administration and operations of the Commission.

Strategic direction

The Commission endeavours to provide a timely, cost effective and non-adversarial process for resolving Building Code disputes through a streamlined and accessible appeals system. In doing so, the Commission has earned a reputation of being an effective, useful and quality service provider within the construction industry. There are, however, certain challenges that face the Commission. In order to address these challenges and to improve its on-going operations and client service delivery, the Commission plans to undertake the following initiatives.

Time to hearings

In previous years, the Commission had noted a trend of it not meeting its stated target with respect to the length of time to holding a hearing. The Commission had been tracking the average number of working days from receipt of an application to a hearing as well as the average number of working days from receipt of the confirmation of dispute to a hearing.

At its past general meetings, the Commission reviewed the wording of its performance measure related to timeliness of hearings. The Commission decided that the performance measure should track what the Commission is responsible for, which is providing hearing dates, and filter out matters beyond the control of the Commission, such as delayed return of documents or parties being unavailable for hearing dates.

The Commission decided that the performance measure should read “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application for 85% of all hearings” and “Offer a date for a hearing to be held within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings”. The Commission’s process includes input from the parties; therefore the Commission’s ability to hold a hearing within a certain number of working days is based on the responses from the parties being received by the Commission within a specific time frame.

The Commission notes that the targets for both of these performance measures were met for the 2016-2017 fiscal year. The Commission offered a hearing date within 40 working days from receipt of a complete application in 97% of its cases and within 20 working days from receipt of the Respondent’s confirmation of dispute in 87% of its cases.

As discussed in previous Business Plans, the Commission has returned to its previous practice of holding up to three hearings in a day which has assisted in continuing to achieve a positive result for this performance measure. The Commission and staff will continue to analyse these performance measures annually, along with any factors that may impact results.

Time to written decisions

The Commission’s performance measure target for timely communication of decisions reads, “Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings”. The Commission notes that the target for this performance measure was met in the 2016-2017 fiscal year for 78% of all hearings.

The Commission also has a performance measure target for the timely preparation and finalization of full written decisions, which reads, “Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings”. The Commission notes that this performance measure was met in the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 fiscal years.

The Commission notes that although the performance targets for preparation and finalization of full written decisions have been achieved in the last two fiscal years, it can be highly affected by changes in staff resources, number of applications and hearings held within a fiscal year. In addition, it should be noted processing of full written decisions require member approvals and French translation before full written decisions can posted on

Transparency and accountability

The Commission continues to comply with the accountability requirements set out in the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009. The legislation requires the Commission to review its accountability documents on a regular basis, and places some additional requirements on the process for recruitment of new members. As a result of the rules contained within the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, the Commission was required to develop a recruitment statement which details the process to be undertaken when seeking recruitment of new members. In accordance with its recruitment statement, the Commission developed a job advertisement which was posted on the Public Appointments Secretariat website in 2016-2017.

Succession planning

The Commission has a total of 19 part-time members, including the Chair. All Commission members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through an Order in Council. Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive permits individuals appointed to the Commission to serve a combined term of appointment of up to 10 years.

Succession planning continues to be an appointments-related issue. Ideally, not more than 10% of the membership should retire from the Commission in any given year.

The Commission Chair and staff had developed a plan to address this issue. In summary, the plan is to work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat to seek appointments of new members more often and in smaller groups, so that their terms of appointment do not all expire at once.

This strategy would allow the Commission to improve succession planning; achieve appointment overlaps, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members; achieve an appropriate balance of geographical representation; promote mentoring of new members; and achieve and maintain membership having expertise in all technical disciplines (structural, fire safety, plumbing, mechanical systems, on-site sewage systems, etc.).

The Commission notes that the opportunity for existing members to mentor the new members was lost with the recent round of appointments.

With 13 members having been appointed in November 2016, the Commission is once again in a situation where the 10 year maximum tenure of the majority of its membership occurs at the same time. This trend, in which large groups of terms of appointment expire at the same time, will continue to be an issue.

In order to mitigate this issue from continuing to occur, the Commission strongly urges that this be taken into account for any future appointments and that the Commission Chair considers this issue when making recommendations on reappointment of existing members.

The Commission Chair and staff continue to work with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to improve the existing complement of regional representation and to maintain the gender diversity.

Annual survey of parties

The Commission intends to continue its independent survey which assists the Commission in determining satisfaction with levels of service delivery.

Overview of key activities

Staff supporting the Commission are responsible for case management and customer service to persons wishing to apply to the Commission for a hearing. The Commission Secretary liaises with the applicants and respondents throughout the appeal process. The Commission Secretary also works with Building and Development Branch staff in order to obtain Branch opinions on the technical issues involved in applications. Hearings are scheduled for the earliest possible hearing date, based on the volume of applications received.

The Ministry’s Coordinator of Building Innovation is the senior Commission staff person and is responsible for the overall administration of and policy development for the Commission. This involves liaising with the Minister’s Office regarding the appointments process, issues management, business planning, performance measurement, monitoring of expenditures and ensuring compliance with agency sector requirements and Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet directives.

The Commission received 30 new applications and held 33 hearings between April 1, 2016 and March 31, 2017. Once the hearing has concluded, the members of the panel deliberate on the evidence and render their ruling. This decision is then communicated to the parties to the hearing and is eventually posted on the Commission’s website. The Commission received the following numbers of applications over the previous five years:

Chart 1A

Fiscal year*Building
applications
Septic
applications
Permit time
period applications
Inspection time
period applications
Total applications
2013-20142956040
2014-20153041035
2015-201642***32047
2016-20173041035
2017-2018**1433020

The Commission conducted the following numbers of hearings over the previous five years:

Note: Differences in application vs. hearing totals may be attributed in part to matters being resolved between the parties before a hearing is held as well as having some hearings involving files from previous fiscal years.

Chart 1B

Fiscal year*

Total hearings

2013-2014

38

2014-2015

26

2015-2016

47***

2016-2017

33***

2017-2018**

26***

* The Commission’s fiscal year runs from April 1 – March 31.

**The actuals for 2017-2018 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are interim actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018. Results for the 2017-2018 fiscal year will be reported in next year’s business plan report.

*** In addition to the 42 building applications in 2015-2016, two more applications were referred to the Commission by the Superior Court of Justice, which resulted in ten additional hearing days. In 2016-2017 the same two applications resulted in seven additional hearing days. In 2017-2018, one court reference resulted in four additional hearing days.

Achievements

Several steps have been taken to enhance the Commission’s performance and accountability over the past several years, including addition of performance measurements to the Ministry’s business planning process, and continued monitoring of Commission-specific performance measures. The Commission surveys its clients at the end of each fiscal year, survey results for the 2017-2018 fiscal year will not be received and tabulated until end of April 2018. Results are reported in the Commission’s Annual Report.

Based on the annual client survey, the Commission identified the following achievements for 2016-2017:

  • heard 100% of service level disputes within five days from the date of application
  • continued to provide a fair and expeditious appeal mechanism regarding technical disputes and, as a result, again faced no judicial review challenges during the 2016-2017 fiscal year
  • continued its practice of surveying clients after the close of the fiscal year (i.e. after March 31, 2017 for this business plan)
  • survey results of parties that used Commission services in the 2016-2017 fiscal year indicated that:
    • 92% felt that the processes and procedures were clear and understandable
    • 92% felt that members demonstrated an appropriate level of expertise regarding the matter under consideration
    • 100% felt that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process
    • 100% felt they were treated with courtesy at the hearing
    • 92% were satisfied with the overall level of service provided by the Commission

Other achievements in 2016-2017 fiscal year included:

  • the Commission already met the gender diversity target set by the Ontario government that, by 2019, women make up at least 40% of all appointments to every provincial Agency, Board and Commission
  • 13 new members were appointed to the Commission in November of 2016

The Commission has also identified the following achievements in 2017-2018 from April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017:

  • the Commission Chair and staff worked with the Public Appointments Secretariat and the Minister’s Office to appoint four new members, three having on-site sewage system expertise
  • the Commission continued to maintain its compliance with the Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive:
    • it prepared, finalized and submitted its three year Business Plan for 2017-2020
    • its Annual Report for 2016-2017 fiscal year was completed and approved by the Commission within the specified time frame
  • the Commission continues to maintain compliance with the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009
  • the Commission held two meetings of the full Commission, and will continue this practice as it accommodates the review and approval of accountability requirements such as the Annual Report and the Business Plan

Resources

Human resources

The Commission currently has a total of 19 part-time members, including the Chair. All members are appointed by an Order-in-Council for terms totalling up to 10 years, in accordance with Management Board of Cabinet’s Agencies and Appointments Directive. The Chair and Vice-Chairs are responsible for agency governance and relations with the Ministry.

The following divisions of the Ministry support the Commission in fulfilling the Agencies and Appointments Directive:

  • Building Services Transformation Branch
  • Building and Development Branch
  • Corporate Services Branch
  • Controllership and Financial Planning Branch
  • Legal Services Branch
  • I&IT Community Services Cluster

The Commission’s direct support staff (who are Ministry employees) consists of a 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Commission Secretary, a 0.4 FTE Coordinator, Building Innovation, and a 0.4 FTE administrative assistant.

Financial resources

The Commission has no financial budget of its own. The Commission is supported by Ministry staff. The operating expenses for this Commission are charged to the Ministry’s Municipal Services Division (Municipal Services and Building Regulation Vote/Item - 1902-04).

The chart below provides details on the costs associated with supporting the Commission:

Chart 2A

Expense
type
2016-2017
actuals
2017-2018
interim actuals
2018-2019
estimates
2019-2020
estimates
2020-2021
estimates

Members' per diems

$100,965

$56,4643

$50,000

$52,000

$54,000

Members' travel/hearing expenses

$20,772

$13,102

$12,000

$12,360

$12,720

Other
administration

$9,662

$6,870

$8,000

$8,240

$8,500

Subtotal

$139,3993

$76,4564

$70,0004

$72,6004

$75,2204

Full time
equivalents - numbers

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

Full time
equivalents - costs
(salary + benefits)

$139,583

$80,216

$152,000

$156,560

$160,000

Total 

$270,982

$156,672

$222,000

$237,490

$235,220

Notes:

1The Commission’s fiscal year runs from April 1 to March 31. The actuals for 2016-2017 cover the period from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017.

2The interim actuals for 2017-2018 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are interim actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

3As a result of a change in the way members are paid their per diems, the 2017-2018 per diem interim actuals reflect from April 2017 to November 2017.

4The operating expenses cover costs associated with hearings, per diems for Commission members and reimbursement for out-of-pocket travel expenses related to hearings, including hotel accommodations, meal allowances (to the maximum allowed through the Travel, Meals and Hospitality Expenses Directive), parking and public transit.

The Commission notes that the 2016-2017 Actuals and 2017-2018 Interim Actuals are substantially higher than the estimates projected for 2018 to 2021 fiscal years. This is due to the cost of Member per diems for the multiple days of hearing and deliberations required for the court referral matter to the Commission. The court referral is expected to conclude in early 2018.

Revenue

A fee for filing an application to the Building Code Commission was implemented starting January 1, 2014 ($170 per application) and is set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Accordingly, the application fee increased to $181.00, on January 1, 2017 and increased to $184.00 effective January 1, 2018. For the purposes of determining the estimated revenues for 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, a CPI increase of 2% was assumed resulting in a fee of $187.00 effective January 1, 2019 and a fee of $191.00 effective January 1, 2020.

Revenues received from the application fee are recorded as part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs’ non-tax revenues.

The chart below provides details of the revenues associated with applications to the Commission:

Chart 2B

Revenues

2016-2017
actuals
2017-2018
interim actuals
1
2018-2019
estimates
2
2019-2020
estimates
2

2020-2021
estimates
2

Application fees

$5,314$3,620$6,500$6,600

$6,700

Total revenues

$5,314$3,620$6,500$6,600

$6,700

Notes:

1The actuals for 2017-2018 do not reflect the entire fiscal period. The numbers are interim actuals that cover the period from April 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

2Estimated revenues for 2018-2019 and ongoing are based on an average of 35 applications per year. Applications fees were established on January 1, 2014 and set to increase annually up to the rate of the Consumer Price Index.

Communications plan

The agency communicates with applicants and potential applicants through appropriate publications, forms and instructions, either posted on its public Internet page or distributed on request.

Telephone and email inquiries are responded to by the Secretary of the Commission or the Coordinator, Building Innovation.

Environmental scan

Conditions with impacts on the Business Plan

Changes in demand

The increased complexity of the applications as well as an increase in the number of applications that contain multiple disputes will influence the need for appropriately skilled Commission members and could potentially impact the administrative support system required by the Commission. It is essential that the Commission have a sufficient number of skilled members appointed to ensure that it can continue to provide Ontarians with a cost effective and efficient avenue for resolution of disputes.

The Commission has also seen an increase in the number of applications requiring the Commission to examine and determine its jurisdiction and mandate relative to disputes that may extend beyond the technical requirements of the Building Code.

With the increase in the complexity of the applications and the increase in the number of applications that contain multiple disputes, the Commission notes that the length of time it takes to fully hear the matter has also increased. Further, the Commission received two references from the Superior Court of Justice under Section 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992. One of these references resulted in multiple hearing days – this hearing took up 21 hearing days between November 2015 and June 2017 when it concluded. The panel member’s deliberations and preparation of the report for the Superior Court of Justice has taken seven days as of the end of November 2017 and is still ongoing. It should be noted that the court reference hearings resulted in a significant increase in the expenditures of the Commission as well increased demand on the Commission’s administrative resources.

New commission members

During 2017, the Chair of the Commission made recommendations to the Minister on possible new appointees. Four new members were appointed to the Commission; three having expertise in on-site sewage systems.

While the appointment of new members allows the Commission to continue to fulfil its mandate, new appointments for the Chair and Vice Chair positions will be required in 2018.

In addition, in order to try and address the overall succession planning issue noted previously, the Commission Chair will need to carefully consider what recommendations to make regarding reappointment of current members. It may be necessary to recommend that not all members will be reappointed or appointment terms may be for a shortened term.

Potential financial pressures

As part-time appointees, Commission members receive remuneration in the form of a per diem as established by Treasury Board/Management Board of Cabinet. This per diem ranges from $429 for members to $530 for the Vice-Chair and $676 for the Chair. Commission members are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses associated with attending Commission hearings in Toronto. Costs and expenses associated with Commission activities, including operating costs and member per diems, form part of the overall budget for the Building Services Transformation Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Any changes to the Commission’s application rate and/or complexity of issues will also directly impact the Branch’s budget in support of Commission activities.

Performance measures and targets

The Commission has adopted the recommendations for performance measurement established by the Agency Reform (Guzzo) Commission. These are: fairness, accessibility, timeliness, quality and consistency, transparency, expertise, optimum cost, and courtesy. While not all of the goals were rated as “high” priorities for the Commission, processes are in place to ensure that all goals are integrated into the Commission’s operation and are, therefore, adequately addressed. The chart below indicates how the Commission ranked the goals:

Table 3

Goals

Ranking

Fairness

High

Accessibility*

Low

Timeliness

High

Quality and Consistency

Medium

Transparency

High

Expertise

High

Optimum Cost

Low

Courtesy

High

* It should be noted that the term “Accessibility” for the purposes of the performance measurement recommendations of the Agency Reform Commission was related to providing seamless and simple access to dispute resolution so that the public can receive quality and timely services regardless of their familiarity with the system.

Building Code Commission: Performance Measures

OutcomesMeasuresTargets2016-2017 Results2018-2021 Commitments

Fairness (processes and procedures that are fair and are seen to be fair)

Parties* are satisfied that the process was implemented fairly and without bias

Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis

Target met. None of the hearings resulted in a judicial review in the 2016-2017 fiscal year

Not more than 10% of hearings should result in judicial review on an annual basis

Timeliness (quick resolution of technical construction disputes)

a) Number of  working days from application to offered hearing date

a) Offer a date for hearing within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings

a) Target met. A hearing date within 40 working days of receipt of complete application was offered for 97% of all hearings

a) Offer a date for hearing to be held within 40 working days from receipt of complete application for 85% of all hearings

Timeliness

b) Number of working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute to offered hearing date

b) Offer a date for hearing within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute for 85% of all hearings

b) Target met. A hearing date within 20 working days of receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute was offered for 87% of all hearings

b) Offer a date for hearing to be held within 20 working days from receipt of Respondent’s confirmation of dispute, for 85% of all hearings

Timeliness

c) Timely communication of decision

c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings

c) Target met. Communicated decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 78% of all hearings

c) Communicate decisions to parties within 20 working days of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings

Timeliness

d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision

d) Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings

d) Target met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 87% of hearings

d) Prepare and finalize full written decision within six months of completion of hearing  for 75% of all hearings

Timeliness

e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site

e) Post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

e) Target met. 85% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

e) Request to post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

Timeliness

a) Timely acknowledgement and notification of hearing date

a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days

a) Target met. Receipt of complete submission acknowledged and provided date for appeal hearing within two business days in 100% of the cases

a) Acknowledge receipt of complete submission and provide date for appeal hearing within two business days

Timeliness

b) Timely scheduling of hearing date

b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application

b) Target met. Appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels were heard within five business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of the cases

b) Hear appeals regarding the issuance of municipal building permits and inspection service levels within five business days of receiving the completed application

Timeliness

c) Timely communication of decision

c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application

c) Target met. Communicated decisions within 15 business days of receiving the completed application in 100% of the cases

c) Communicate decisions within 15 business days of receiving the  completed application

Timeliness

d) Timely preparation and finalization of full written decision

d) Full written decision to be prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 75% of all hearings

d) Target met. Full written decisions were prepared and finalized within six months of completion of hearing for 100% of hearings

d) Prepare and finalize full written decision within six months of completion of hearing  for 75% of all hearings

Timeliness

e) Timely posting of final written decisions on Building Code Commission internet site

e) Post 80% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

e) Target met. 100% of full written decisions that were prepared and finalized were posted on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

e) Request to post 85% of final written decisions on the Building Code Commission internet site within 10 working days of completion of the French translation

Quality and Consistency (process and procedures that have integrity and uniformity)

Parties are satisfied that the Commission process was conducted with a high degree of quality and consistency

85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency

Target met. 2016-2017 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency

85% of parties feel that the process had a high degree of quality and consistency

Transparency (clear and understandable process and procedures)

Parties are satisfied that the BCC process and procedures were clearly understood

85%  of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable

Target met. 2016-2017 survey results indicate 92% of parties felt that the process and procedures were clear and understandable

85% of parties feel that the process and procedures were clear and understandable

Expertise (Thoughtful and sound Building Code Commission decisions made due to technical competence of members)

a) Parties are satisfied that the Commission members demonstrated an appropriate level of knowledge and technical competency

a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing

a) Target met. 2016-2017 survey results indicate 92% of parties were satisfied that members were experts

a) 85% of parties feel that the members were experts in the subject matter of the hearing

Expertise

b) Timely notice to the Minister’s Office regarding upcoming  Building  Code Commission member terms of appointment expiration

b) Provide four months’ notice to the Minister’s Office in advance of member’s appointments expiring

b) Target met. The Minister’s office was provided with four months’ notice in advance of member appointments expiring in the fiscal year 2016-2017

b) Provide four  months’ notice to the Minister’s Office in advance of member’s appointments expiring

Courtesy (polite and courteous treatment of all parties)

Parties are satisfied that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and at a hearing

85% of parties surveyed feel that they were treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing

Target met. 2016-2017 survey results indicate that 100% of parties felt that they were treated with courtesy by Commission staff throughout the application process and 100% felt that they were treated with courtesy by the Commission members at the hearing

85% of parties feel that they are treated with courtesy throughout the application process and the hearing

 In this Table, “parties” are those recognized by the Building Code Act, 1992, namely BCC Applicants (i.e. applicants for building permits, holders of building permits or persons to whom an order has been issued) and Respondents (i.e. municipal enforcement officials and their designates).

Risk assessment

Based on the Commission’s strategic directions and objectives, one risk to performance have been identified.

Mitigation strategies (including contingency plans, mitigation controls, and monitoring where required as part of prudent risk management protocols) are identified. Planning is required to address these issues and will be scheduled.

The Reference Impact and Probability Matrix used in this assessment is shown below.

Risk evaluation matrix

ImpactProbability LowProbability MediumProbability High
HighMitigation controls /
contingency plans
Mitigation controls /
contingency plans;
monitor closely
Take urgent remedial action;
monitor rigorously
MediumTolerate; monitorMitigation controls /
contingency plans
Mitigation controls /
contingency plans; monitor closely
LowTolerate; no actionTolerate; monitorMitigation controls /
contingency plans

Risk #1: Lack of knowledge transfer/succession planning impacting Commission

Currently, the Commission’s two Vice Chair positions are vacant and the Chair’s current appointment is set to expire in 2018.

Succession planning continues to be an important issue for the Commission. Insufficient overlap between sitting members whose terms are nearing expiration, and newly appointed members, has in the past resulted in a disproportionate load on some of the more experienced members. Newly appointed members are unfamiliar with Commission processes. Ideally, not more than 10% of members should retire from the Commission in any given year. This allows for gradual phasing in and out of members and maintains a balance of veteran and newer members. The Commission has expressed an interest in having more overlap between sitting members and newly appointed members than has been afforded in the past.

Probability: medium

The Chair along with one other member will reach their ten year maximum term in 2018. Further, every member of the Commission will have their current term of appointment expire during the three fiscal years covered by this plan, with the majority expiring in 2018. If members are not interested in being reappointed then this risk will increase.

Impact: medium

Extensive simultaneous changes in Commission membership can result in a disproportionate workload on some members, and creates difficulty in determining the appropriate composition of a hearing panel. Newer members, while they may be technically experienced, ideally should be phased into hearings to learn the processes of the Commission.

Without the appointment of a Chair in the next fiscal year, the Commission will experience a significant leadership gap, as the Chair provides strategic direction of the Commission and acts as the Commission’s Ethic’s Executive.

Mitigation:

Advertisements for the Commission’s Chair and Vice Chair positions are expected to be posted in early 2018 on the Public Appointments Secretariat’s website. The Chair is expected to make recommendations to the Minister for possible new appointments in winter or spring 2018.

Should it become necessary to advertise for any new Commission members, advertising would be placed on the Public Appointments Secretariat’s website at the earliest possible opportunity in 2018.

In order to try and address the overall succession planning issue, the Commission Chair will need to carefully consider what recommendations to make regarding reappointment of current members. It may be necessary to recommend that not all members will be reappointed or that appointment terms be for a shortened term.

The Commission Chair and staff will work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat to seek appointments of new members more often and in smaller groups, so that their terms of appointment do not all expire at once. As mentioned above, the ideal would be to have not more than 10% of its appointments expire in the same year.

This strategy will allow the Commission to improve succession planning; achieve appointment overlaps, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members; achieve an appropriate balance of geographical representation; promote mentoring of new members; and achieve and maintain membership having expertise in all technical disciplines (structural, fire safety, plumbing, mechanical systems, on-site sewage systems, etc.).

Contingency plan:

The Commission will continue to process its applications and hold its hearings as quickly as possible. The Commission Chair and Ministry staff will continue to make it a priority to work with the Minister’s Office and the Public Appointments Secretariat on recruitment, to achieve appointment overlaps that improve succession planning, allowing for knowledge transfer from existing members to newly appointed members, and promoting mentoring of new members.